Impact of Tillage and Straw Management on Soil Properties and Rice Yield in a Rice-Ratoon Rice System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors presented results of a 2-year rice-ratoon field trial to investigate the effects of different tillage and straw returning methods on soil bulk density, total porosity, soil organic carbon , β-glucosidase, urease content in rice and grain yield. The manuscript is of interest to the journal; however, it requires some improvements. There are points that, in my opinion, must be addressed and lead me to suggest major revision for the paper in its actual form.

In the introduction, the authors comment that there are few studies with the hypothesis that is proposed. However, it is not clear if there are similar studies in other areas of other parts of the world with similar climate and growing conditions. In my opinion, this should be indicated in the manuscript. Most of the references cited both in the introduction and in the discussion are from authors from China. It would be important to add other references from other agricultural areas with similar climate and agricultural systems.

Regarding the material and methods part, it is where, from my point of view, I consider that important changes must be made.

Line 78 Considering the particularities of this trial, presenting results of only 2 years (It would be better to talk about growing seasons instead of years) is very scarce.

Line 81. What is the number of years that correspond to these two mean values? it would be important to put an average value of a history of at least 30 years. Moreover, it would be important to detail the rainfall and temperature during the growing seasons to be able to make a more correct comparison of the high variability of rain that there is in the climate of the area.

Line 82. what depth were the samples soil taken? Considering that the rice root can reach up to 40 or 50 cm, putting soil data on the first cm could be insufficient. In this way, was the electrical conductivity, nitrogen-nitric and carbon-nitrogen ratio analyzed?

Line 100-103. It is not clear if in 2020 or 2021. If the sowings began in March and ended in November, why do the authors say that the experiments were carried out for two years (2020 and 2021). In both years, was the rice planted and harvested on the same days? This paragraph would have to be rewritten so that the reader understands it clearly.

Line 104-106. Why have these doses been chosen? It would be important to put a sentence detailing and justifying the choice of those levels. How was the fertilizer applied by hand or by machine? Was the fertilizer incorporated o just broadcasted on surface? It is no clear.

 

Line 111. It seems that only one replicates per treatment are not enough to obtain representative data. How were the samples taken? with what tool?

Line 138- 147. The analysis of variance and mean comparisons were not conducted with appropriate tests. Assuming that (not detailed anywhere in the text) the authors applied treatments on the same plots for 2 years, thus ANOVA model should consider repeated measurements in the design. Moreover, the authors forgot interactions year*treatment. In this way, if interactions occur, the post-hoc test must consider for that in order to get the right error term (find significant differences for one factor within levels of another). In any case the ANOVA model should be better described (fixed factor, repeated measurements.

Line 150-160. The authors showed comparisons detailing percentage increases and differences between treatments. However, it is not clear if these values ​​correspond to the year 2020 or the year 2021 or the average between the two. It would be important to detail it both for performance and for the other variables analyzed.

Line 166-167. Rewrite “Error bars indicate standard deviation of the mean. Within growing seasons, different letters indicate significant differences between treatments according to Duncan´s multiple range test (p < 0.05).

In general, in the presentation of the results, the authors omitted to include one or more tables with the ANOVA test data. These tables should include the significance of the ANOVA test of the treatments and their interaction, taking each of the variables into account. In this way, in line 143 the authors write “differences in rice indicators between 2 years were compared by independent sample t-test”, however, this significance for years of study is not reported anywhere in the manuscript. It should be mentioned in a table or in some section of the results.

Finally, in the conclusions., it would be interesting if the authors addressed the importance of the experiment with the results obtained. In this sense, a section should be included with the applicability on a real scale (farmers) of the results obtained and argued throughout the discussion. In other words, it should be noted, why is this type of study important from the agronomic, economic and environmental point of view? Where will future research go?.

Author Response

Responses to reviewer comments:

 

#Reviewer 1

The authors presented results of a 2-year rice-ratoon field trial to investigate the effects of different tillage and straw returning methods on soil bulk density, total porosity, soil organic carbon , β-glucosidase, urease content in rice and grain yield. The manuscript is of interest to the journal; however, it requires some improvements. There are points that, in my opinion, must be addressed and lead me to suggest major revision for the paper in its actual form.

Response: I appreciate the reviewer’s comment as it is very helpful for us to re-organize the MS. We have made a major revision of the manuscript with your suggestion.

 

In the introduction, the authors comment that there are few studies with the hypothesis that is proposed. However, it is not clear if there are similar studies in other areas of other parts of the world with similar climate and growing conditions. In my opinion, this should be indicated in the manuscript. Most of the references cited both in the introduction and in the discussion are from authors from China. It would be important to add other references from other agricultural areas with similar climate and agricultural systems.

Response: Thank you very much for the reviewer suggestions, We have consulted a large number of Chinese and foreign literatures in detail. Since our experiment was carried out in Hubei Province, China, considering the regionality of climate and ecology, most of the references were made by Chinese scholars. I have benefited a lot from your suggestions, and I have reorganized relevant references and integrated them into the introduction. We have been highlighted in red in the manuscript.

 

Regarding the material and methods part, it is where, from my point of view, I consider that important changes must be made.

Response: Thank you very much for the reviewer suggestions, We have made major revisions to the materials and methods, especially in the inter-season temperature, rainfall and sunshine hours, as well as the sowing, transplanting and harvesting dates of the main season rice and regrown rice in 2020 and 2021. We have been highlighted in red in the manuscript.

 

Line 78 Considering the particularities of this trial, presenting results of only 2 years (It would be better to talk about growing seasons instead of years) is very scarce.

Response: Thanks for your advice. We have corrected in the MS. The data has been checked again. We have been highlighted in red in the manuscript.

 

Line 81. What is the number of years that correspond to these two mean values? it would be important to put an average value of a history of at least 30 years. Moreover, it would be important to detail the rainfall and temperature during the growing seasons to be able to make a more correct comparison of the high variability of rain that there is in the climate of the area.

Response: Sorry for the trouble caused to your review. We have supplemented the temperature, rainfall and sunshine duration data for 2020 and 2021, which have been highlighted in red in the manuscript.

 

 

Line 82. what depth were the samples soil taken? Considering that the rice root can reach up to 40 or 50 cm, putting soil data on the first cm could be insufficient. In this way, was the electrical conductivity, nitrogen-nitric and carbon-nitrogen ratio analyzed?

Response: Thanks for the review’s opinion. The depth of soil sampling was 0-40cm, which had basically reached the ploughing layer. For example, "siltyclayloam", "sand" and "silt" were all data obtained through mesh screens with diameter of "0.02-0.002mm".

Your comments are very valuable to us. Since this paper does not involve relevant studies such as carbon and nitrogen metabolism, we are obtaining relevant data such as "electrical conductivity, nitrogen-nitric and carbon-nitrogen ratio analyzed" in order to state relevant conclusions. We hope to submit the relevant research manuscript again this year. We have been highlighted in red in the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Unfortunately, I have to inform you that I would not accept this paper for the further procedure only because of one big key reason: your research is covered only in two years (2020 - 2021). For journals at this level, in my opinion, research must be  at least three-year, or two-year, in two locations. If this condition were met, I would definitely accept the work for publication after minor revisions. Therefore, I suggest that you extend your research for another year or include another location and you will not have any problems in the future.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your review of the revised review in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1.       Line 74 „content in rice ...“ – not in soil?

2.       „Weeds, pests, and diseases were intensively controlled to avoid loss of grain yield“ – using pesticides or other methods? What pesticides and when?

3.       Line 134-136: „The filled grains in each 5 m2 plant sample were 134
separated from the straws. The filled grains and straws were oven-dried at 70 °C to a stable 135
weight and weighed, and grain yield was calculated at 14% moisture content“ - were the ears threshed and only the grain weighed or not?

4.       141: „4 tillage managements“  - 2 tillage managements were tested – no till and plow tillage. May be 4 treatments /  variants?

5.       146: „3 significance levels were set at p < 0.05 and p < 0.01“ - here are only two.

6.       141-145: why in so difficult way? The data of this experiment can be evaluated statistically as data of 3 way experiment: soil tillage, straw treatment and year (main season rice) and the same with ratoon season rice.

7.       152-153: „The interaction of tillage management and straw residue management had significant effects on rice yield and straw biomass in main season rice and rice yield in ratoon season rice“ – there are no data of ANOVA.

8.       Abreviations in Abstract and Conclusions makes it more difficult to retrieve information, especially when writing inaccurately (for example, TPand). In Abstract some abreviations are explaned, but some are not (TDW, TP, SOC, BG and UR).

9.       373: „Combined with straw returning ...“ – NT Combined with straw returning...?

Author Response

Responses to reviewer comments:

 

#Reviewer 3

1. Line 74 „content in rice ...“ – not in soil?

Response: Thank you for pointing out that we have corrected in the manuscript. We have been highlighted in red in the manuscript.

 

2. „Weeds, pests, and diseases were intensively controlled to avoid loss of grain yield“ – using pesticides or other methods? What pesticides and when?

Response: Thank you for pointing out that we have corrected in the manuscript. We have been highlighted in red in the manuscript.

 

3. Line 134-136: „The filled grains in each 5 m2 plant sample were 134

separated from the straws. The filled grains and straws were oven-dried at 70 °C to a stable 135

weight and weighed, and grain yield was calculated at 14% moisture content“ - were the ears threshed and only the grain weighed or not?

Response: Sorry for the trouble caused to your review. We have corrected in the manuscript. We have been highlighted in red in the manuscript.

 

4. 141: „4 tillage managements“- 2 tillage managements were tested – no till and plow tillage. May be 4 treatments /  variants?

Response: Thank you for pointing out that we have corrected in the manuscript. We have been highlighted in red in the manuscript.

 

5. 146: „3 significance levels were set at p < 0.05 and p < 0.01“ - here are only two.

Response: Sorry for the trouble caused to your review. We have corrected in the MS. We have been highlighted in red in the manuscript.

 

 

6. 141-145: why in so difficult way? The data of this experiment can be evaluated statistically as data of 3 way experiment: soil tillage, straw treatment and year (main season rice) and the same with ratoon season rice.

Response: Sorry for the trouble caused to your review. We have corrected in the MS. We have been highlighted in red in the manuscript.

 

7. 152-153: „The interaction of tillage management and straw residue management had significant effects on rice yield and straw biomass in main season rice and rice yield in ratoon season rice“ – there are no data of ANOVA.

Response: Sorry for the trouble caused to your review. We have corrected in the MS. We have been highlighted in red in the manuscript.

 

8. Abreviations in Abstract and Conclusions makes it more difficult to retrieve information, especially when writing inaccurately (for example, TPand). In Abstract some abreviations are explaned, but some are not (TDW, TP, SOC, BG and UR).

Response: Sorry for the trouble caused to your review. We have corrected in the MS. We have been highlighted in red in the manuscript.

 

9. 373: „Combined with straw returning ...“ –NT Combined with straw returning...?

Response: Sorry for the trouble caused to your review. We have corrected in the MS. We have been highlighted in red in the manuscript.

 

 

Line 82. what depth were the samples soil taken? Considering that the rice root can reach up to 40 or 50 cm, putting soil data on the first cm could be insufficient. In this way, was the electrical conductivity, nitrogen-nitric and carbon-nitrogen ratio analyzed?

Response: Thanks for the review’s opinion. The depth of soil sampling was 0-40cm, which had basically reached the ploughing layer. For example, "siltyclayloam", "sand" and "silt" were all data obtained through mesh screens with diameter of "0.02-0.002mm".

Your comments are very valuable to us. Since this paper does not involve relevant studies such as carbon and nitrogen metabolism, we are obtaining relevant data such as "electrical conductivity, nitrogen-nitric and carbon-nitrogen ratio analyzed" in order to state relevant conclusions. We hope to submit the relevant research manuscript again this year. We have been highlighted in red in the manuscript.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors,

below are some detailed comments on the manuscript:

1. it is necessary to improve the language. 

2. lines 84-85: very imprecise statements - units should be expressed in mass ratios and not descriptively (each kilogram.... etc.), besides, what does it mean that the content of OM, N, P, K was determined in a kilogram of soil with pH = 5,.83? if we change the mass then the pH and the content of these compounds will change? please correct this.  

3. lines 111 and 119; 133 and 134: unnecessary repetition

4. the relationship between PT and BD and air conditions described in chapter 4.2 I consider to be unnecessary. the comments that ploughing causes a decrease in BD and a change in porosity are too obvious, there is no point in mentioning them.

5. the conclusions are incorrectly edited... it is not clear which system is better: NT+S or PT+S? all that is known is that straw has to be introduced/returned

Overall, the peer-reviewed article is poorly edited, written in incorrect language and difficult to read in many places. However, it has some valuable content, so I suggest a major revision.

it is necessary to improve the language. 

Author Response

Responses to reviewer comments:

 

#Reviewer 4

Dear authors,

below are some detailed comments on the manuscript:

 

1. it is necessary to improve the language. 

Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have invited English-speaking experts to make linguistic modifications to the manuscript. 

 

2. lines 84-85: very imprecise statements - units should be expressed in mass ratios and not descriptively (each kilogram.... etc.), besides, what does it mean that the content of OM, N, P, K was determined in a kilogram of soil with pH = 5,.83? if we change the mass then the pH and the content of these compounds will change? please correct this.  

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. It has been corrected in the article. We have been highlighted in red in the manuscript.

 

3. lines 111 and 119; 133 and 134: unnecessary repetition

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments, but since lines 111 and 119 describe the sampling and analysis of soil, while lines 133 and 134 describe the sampling of rice plants, we believe that they need to be described separately. We have been highlighted in red in the manuscript.

 

4. the relationship between PT and BD and air conditions described in chapter 4.2 I consider to be unnecessary. the comments that ploughing causes a decrease in BD and a change in porosity are too obvious, there is no point in mentioning them.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion, we have revised it in the manuscript. We have been highlighted in red in the manuscript.

 

 

5. the conclusions are incorrectly edited... it is not clear which system is better: NT+S or PT+S? all that is known is that straw has to be introduced/returned

Overall, the peer-reviewed article is poorly edited, written in incorrect language and difficult to read in many places. However, it has some valuable content, so I suggest a major revision.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have indeed ignored this and have revised the conclusion. We have been highlighted in red in the manuscript.

 

 

Overall, the peer-reviewed article is poorly edited, written in incorrect language and difficult to read in many places. However, it has some valuable content, so I suggest a major revision.

Response: Sorry for the trouble caused to your review, we have invited the relevant experts to modify. Also, thank you very much for your appreciation of our manuscript. Thank you again for your valuable suggestions on our manuscripts, which is of great help to our writing and writing logic. We sincerely hope that the modification of the article can get your affirmation. I wish you a happy life. We have been highlighted in red in the manuscript.

Reviewer 5 Report

The article is well and clearly written. However, I recommend improving the Discussion section even more. And what I consider necessary is the revision of the Conclusion. In this form, it is very austere and general. In my opinion, on the contrary, it should be very accurate and "striking".

Author Response

Responses to reviewer comments:

 

#Reviewer 5

The article is well and clearly written. However, I recommend improving the Discussion section even more. And what I consider necessary is the revision of the Conclusion. In this form, it is very austere and general. In my opinion, on the contrary, it should be very accurate and "striking".

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments, we have revised the conclusion. In our opinion, Our results showed that grain yield significantly increased under the straw residue management measures in NT by 52.8% and PT by 24.9%. Therefore, the yield increase effect of NT is better than that of PT. Else, residue retention could enhance the soil structure, improve the soil TP, SOC, BG and UR activities, further improve the metabolic accumulation ability of soil C and N, and make up for the yield loss under no-till treatment. On the whole, NT combined with straw returning were green and efficient cultivation and management methods, effectively improve the soil structure and soil-related enzyme activities, and achieve high yield and efficient development. We have been highlighted in red in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has improved considerably since the last revision sent

Author Response

Responses to reviewer comments:

 

#Reviewer 1

The manuscript has improved considerably since the last revision sent.

Response: Thank you very much for your appreciation of our manuscript. Thank you again for your valuable suggestions on our manuscripts, which is of great help to our writing and writing logic.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, on my first review round I wrote:

Unfortunately, I have to inform you that I would not accept this paper for the further procedure only because of one big key reason: your research is covered only in two years (2020 - 2021). For journals at this level, in my opinion, research must be at least three-year, or two-year, in two locations. If this condition were met, I would definitely accept the work for publication after minor revisions. Therefore, I suggest that you extend your research for another year or include another location and you will not have any problems in the future.

I still think that two years of research are insufficient for more serious scientific conclusions at the level of this journal, but if Editor and the other reviewers think that it is enough, who am I to judge you.

Best rgds!

 Minor editing of English language required!

Author Response

Responses to reviewer comments:

 

#Reviewer 2

I still think that two years of research are insufficient for more serious scientific conclusions at the level of this journal, but if Editor and the other reviewers think that it is enough, who am I to judge you.

Response:Thank you very much for the reviewer suggestions.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for considering my comments.a

I accept the article in its present form

Author Response

Responses to reviewer comments:

 

#Reviewer 4

Thank you for considering my comments.a I accept the article in its present form.

Response:Thank you very much for your appreciation of our manuscript. Thank you again for your valuable suggestions on our manuscripts, which is of great help to our writing and writing logic.